7th Circuit Denies Stay Of Order Against Sectarian Prayer In Indiana House

In a 2-1 decision, the U.S. 7th Circuit Court of Appeals has refused to stay the judgment of the district court that enjoined the Speaker of the Indiana House of Representatives from permitting further sectarian prayer at the beginning of House sessions. The majority in the 7th Circuit concluded: "In assessing the Speaker's chance of success on the merits of his appeal and in balancing the slight and temporary injury he faces absent a stay, we must conclude that the Speaker has not met his burden of establishing that a stay ought to be granted." The full text of the 18-page majority opinion and 3-page dissent in Hinrichs v. Bosma (7th Cir., March 1, 2006) is available online. Yesterday's Chicago Tribune reports on reactions to the refusal.

Bill Introduced To Strip Federal Courts of Jurisdiction Over Legislative Prayer

Today's Indianapolis Star reports on the latest reaction to an Indiana federal district court decision last year banning sectarian prayer in the state's House of Representatives. That decision is on appeal to the U.S. 7th Circuit court of Appeals. Indiana's U.S. congressman Mike Sodrel however would like to short-circuit the appeal. Last week he introduced federal legislation to remove federal court jurisdiction over the content of prayer in state legislatures. Sodrel will hold a news conference this morning to discuss the bill.

Injunction Stay Pending Appeal Denied In Indiana Legislative Prayer Case

Indiana federal district court judge David Hamilton has written an extensive opinion supporting his refusal to stay his injunction, pending appeal, in the case that prohibited further sectarian prayer in the Indiana House of Representatives. In Hinrichs v. Bosma III, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4740 (SD Ind., Jan. 24, 2006), the court held: "The defendant has not shown that he or others will suffer cognizable irreparable harm by complying with the injunction while the appeal goes forward. The injunction allows official non-sectarian prayers like those the Supreme Court approved in Marsh. Neither the defendant nor any other person has a constitutional right to use an official prayer to express and advance his personal religious beliefs. The balance of harms also weighs against a stay."

In concluding that House Speaker Bosma had showed no irreparable harm, the court said: "The Speaker's claim that the injunction interferes with his 'ability to accommodate the religious needs of those who lead these prayers' reflects a persistent misunderstanding of the court's decision and of the applicable law. All individuals -- the Speaker, all House Members, and any guests who might be invited to offer an official prayer -- retain the right to pray and worship as they see fit in private and non-official settings."

Discussing applicable precedents at length, the court said that it was not persuaded that defendants were likely to succeed on appeal either on their challenge to plaintiffs' standing or on the merits of the case. (See prior related postings 1, 2, 3.)

Full Opinion Refusing To Amend Indiana Legislative Prayer Ban Now Available

Federal district Judge David Hamilton's full opinion refusing to amend his earlier order prohibiting sectarian prayer in the Indiana legislature has now become available. (See prior postings 1, 2 .) Largely unreported before was he fact that Hinrichs v. Bosma II, (Dec. 28, 2005), contains an interesting holding on standing. While most of the plaintiffs in the case based their claims on their standing as taxpayers, one, Anthony Hinrichs, also was a lobbyist who had listened to many of the prayers. After the trial of the case, Hinrichs' employer, Indiana Friends Committee on Legislation, fired him as a lobbyist because of the litigation and his position on legislative prayer. In its Dec. 28 decision the court held that even though standing of plaintiffs is now based only on taxpayer status, the court is not required to limit its injunction to merely prohibiting the expenditure of public funds on sectarian prayer, but can prohibit such prayers even if they are financed in other ways.

The court also clarified that the injunction purposely did not require the Speaker of the House to obtain advance assurances from those offering legislative prayers that they would be non-sectarian, nor does it require the Speaker to interrupt a prayer if it turns out to be sectarian. But the Speaker must give pointed advice about sectarianism in inviting individuals to deliver prayers. Finally the court clarified what is a "sectarian" Christian prayer. "Prayers are sectarian in the Christian tradition when they proclaim or otherwise communicate the beliefs that Jesus of Nazareth was the Christ, the Messiah, the Son of God, or the Savior, or that he was resurrected, or that he will return on Judgment Day or is otherwise divine. "

Indiana House Speaker Will Not Defy Federal Judge On Prayer

The Baptist Press reported yesterday that in Indianapolis, Indiana Speaker of the House Brian Bosma refused urgings to defy the order of a federal judge banning the opening of legislative sessions with sectarian prayer. (See prior posting.) Bosma said that while the case is being appealed, members could have "informal" and "uncensored" prayers on the floor of the House before each legislative day begins -- but not a formal prayer from the podium. Under the judge's ruling prayers on the floor, rather than from the podium, can invoke Christ's name. Before Bosma spoke, members had already prayed together at the back of the House. Democrat Peggy Welch used "Holy Spirit" in her prayer, while Republican Eric Turner invoked the name of Christ.

Judge Denies Request To Amend Indiana Legislative Prayer Ruling

Indiana federal district judge David Hamilton on Wednesday denied a request to amend his order banning sectarian prayer in the Indiana House of Representatives. (See prior posting). This clears the way for an appeal. House Speaker Brian Bosma argued that the ruling was too vague to enforce. The Indianapolis Star today reports that the refusal was accompanied by this warning from Judge Hamilton: "If the speaker or those offering prayers seek to evade the injunction through indirect but well understood expressions of specifically Christian beliefs, the audience, the public, and the court will be able to see what is happening. In that unlikely event, the court will be able to take appropriate measures to enforce" the injunction.

Indiana Legislative Prayer Case Being Appealed

Yesterday the Associated Press reported that Indiana House Speaker Brian Bosma is asking a federal judge to reconsider a decision prohibiting sectarian prayer in the Indiana House of Representatives. (See prior posting.) Indiana Attorney General Steve Carter filed a motion in federal district court in Indianapolis asking Judge David Hamilton to reconsider his recent opinion that found explicitly Christian invocations to be unconstitutional. The motion also asked the judge to stay his ruling pending the requested reconsideration. At the same time, the state filed formal notice of appeal in the case to the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals.

Reactions To Indiana Legislative Prayer Ruling

Today's Fort Wayne Journal Gazette carries an interesting discussion of reactions to Wednesday's federal court decision in Indiana prohibiting sectarian prayer in the legislature. Rev. John T. Pless of Concordia Theological Seminary commented, "Prayer is never generic. It is always a prayer that is addressed to some deity." Ira Lupu of George Washington University Law School remarked, "We now have this kind of cultural pluralism and expansive idea about faith and spirituality. The idea that there's even a non-sectarian prayer seems like a controversial idea." Meanwhile, state legislators have their own ideas. Rep. Terry Goodin, D-Crothersville, said, "I am not going to stand for this assault on our freedoms of speech and religion. A judge is not going to tell me what I can and cannot say to express my belief in Christ." And U.S. Rep. Stephen Buyer, R-4th, suggested prayers should continue from the floor area in the House chamber: "The well of the legislative body is the most deliberative and protected place in this country. Those who speak from it are granted immunity."

Christian Legislative Prayer Enjoined In Indiana; Urged In Colorado City

In Hinrichs v. v. Bosma, decided yesterday by the U.S. District Court in the Southern District of Indiana, the court found that the Indiana House of Representatives, in opening its sessions with sectarian prayer, violates the Establishment Clause of the U.S. Constitution. 14WFIE reported on the decision. (Also see prior related posting.) Here is an excerpt from the court's opinion:

the evidence shows that the official prayers offered to open sessions of the Indiana House of Representatives repeatedly and consistently advance the beliefs that define the Christian religion: the resurrection and divinity of Jesus of Nazareth. The Establishment Clause “means at the very least that government may not demonstrate a preference for one particular sect or creed (including a preference for Christianity over other religions).... The sectarian content of the substantial majority of official prayers in the Indiana House therefore takes the prayers outside the safe harbor the Supreme Court recognized for inclusive, non-sectarian legislative prayers in Marsh v. Chambers, 463 U.S. 783 (1983). Plaintiffs have standing as Indiana taxpayers to bring their claims, and they are entitled to declaratory and injunctive relief. This relief will not prohibit the House from opening its session with prayers if it chooses to do so, but will require that any official prayers be inclusive and non-sectarian, and not advance one particular religion.

Meanwhile, in Boulder, Colorado, the Daily Camera yesterday reported that the mayor pro-tem, Randy Ahrens, has suggested that City Council meetings be opened with a prayer to set a positive tone after a contentious campaign season. Two pastors offered prayers at the start of the first meeting of the newly-elected Council on Nov. 15. However, their remarks provoked controversy because both preachers represented Christian churches and invoked the name of Jesus Christ in the prayers. Members of Council seem about evenly split on the proposal.